Wish list - Sound producing documentation

Another cool set of thoughts there.

Probably the first thing I'd want to point people to is this link to the..

Pianoteq Tutorials page

and or..

Pianoteq's Workshops page

Then zooming in on one specific one there, Goldberg

There you see and hear some walk-through alterations step by step. There the process described includes selecting an appropriate preset to work from, microphone position, velocity/dynamic/volume, EQ and hammer hardness and some voicing (editing overtones spectrum profile).

Two other sections in the workshop page show making a Bill Evans style of piano sound, and a good approximation of the famous Beatles piano sound in 'Let It Be'.

Here are the two Evans piano examples.. first the referenced recording

https://www.modartt.com/data/audio/pian...xcerpt.mp3

then the final Pianoteq edit..

https://www.modartt.com/data/audio/pian...ni-ws6.mp3

You also hear each step in the workshops between reference and final one. To me the Evans one does get the closest but each is useable for the music for sure.

Worth noting, lots of other links in those sections (menu items above the workshops etc.) - which now display many videos and examples, walk-throughs and reviews, recent and some from some time ago.. all worthwhile, if wanting to enjoy the editing and maximum use case possibilities offered by Pianoteq.

For the rest of the thoughts currently in mind, about editing..

(Summation: I think it may be a mistake to believe that there are particular 'correct' things to do when editing.. each piano/preset and goal will differ virtually and in reality based ways also.. best results will always come when the reading is done and the doing commences. Definitely, it has often occurred to me that this is more about teaching people to catch fish, than catching fish for people.. after all, only you know what fish you are seeking, and there are no particular correct fish, nor correct piano sound, just the one we prefer to hear as we tweak settings - only our ears can tell us which way to move the control - we all find our own way to work the infinite possibilities in our own ways)..

Absolutely I believe, learning a little about each control and what it does in theory is a large part of the enjoyment to be consumed with gusto in Pianoteq. It's definitely kept many here trying to figure things out better over time. There is no end to the options, variations, mixes in theories and vectors of attack for any given goal.. so open ended, that I personally think these workshop guides should give most an inspiring on-ramp to their own editing attempts. As all too often, I'm adding that time is a solid part of the equation which can't be short-cut too much by intellectualizing things.. in a way the concepts are already in existence, the tools on the surface and some examples give some direction.. the rest may be best left to our ears rather than our faith in the numbers on the sliders.. they're important (and you learn your fav settings and techniques in time - but numbers are probably mostly important well after your ears learn more generally what things sound like, hoping the way I've expressed it makes good sense).

Always want to begin by saying something about how, for many or most, the defaults are excellent powerhouses for most use cases - and the rest of the controls are for those of us who are more inclined to dig into the setup of our own tweaked versions. So for many reading, there could be hopefully just some good inspiration from these posts, to try some things out.

The way I view this generally, is that satisfaction (with editing our own personal pianos from the defaults) comes with time and experimentation. I'll add, it's possible I believe to make a default more the way we'd like to hear it, whether playing in our space or recording it.

For most things we do as users, it can mean we only wish to raise or lower reverb, some aspects of it (like how long it lasts, changing perception of room size etc.).

For extra super-duper editing of lots of details across many/most of the full set of controls, there is a risk that anyone can end up not making a more preferable piano, but one which will after focussed editing then a reasonable cool-off time and re-assessment, may be a not so much improved, or even going backwards some way from the initial intention of all the tweaking.

To me, that's kind of just a natural state of affairs and when someone wishes to transcend initial learning curves or teething problems with editing things, I guess I do just think of it as time spent applying what we learn as we go - and eventually we get it - there are always going to be issues with time, and plenty who could just may not get there as fast as they might otherwise and for sure plenty may not get it, no matter how much application they give to it.

But, the idea of a book would be nice - and I think others have mentioned that before as thing they'd like to see - and many do love to see video of Pianoteq users explaining what they are doing with the product too.

I don't know though, that they help get a user from "I would like more data so I can more adequately edit" to "I can do this!". For some, for sure - and maybe I'm kind of old school in a way (like the way I guess in my time people who wanted to do something were the few who actually did that something to the full while the majority watched.. but post Internet and esp. the recent decade and hence, more people spread their time and gather 'near expertize' on many more subjects/skills than in the past.)

The reason I'd like such a book, is that it will help some. The reason I think it may not be so necessary, is that I still believe that those who really are keen will learn quite fast just by trying out combinations of the controls, push them too far, hear how it 'breaks things' and throttle back, begin again etc. I'm kind of fanatical about hoping people try that more.. in my experience, the people who have struggled the most with altering settings are often also saying "I'm afraid to change anything because it may ruin something else".

Another issue with a kind of instruction book (or even a cheat-sheet showing what settings change esp. when done in tandem with specific other tools etc. ) is that no two people (even the most skilled) will not do the exact same things, or even if they do very similar things, they may do those things for quite different reasons - and the nuance in the end may be related entirely to a very personal understanding of what the goal really is.. the 'how to' is in a way almost infinite.

For example, a fabulous producer with something like a dozen Grammies going back nearly 50 years, used to say 'echo' (when the industry term is 'reverb' generally). He just didn't use the term reverb at all.. and for many it seems like he must be a fool or something.. I mean, echo is just a sound returning after reflecting off a... "Aah".. that kind of 'is' what reverb is.. but you know what I mean? To him, others were just splitting hairs to go with what may have been a 'fad' term in his early days. But - nobody would tell him how to do anything - and for so many decades, he worked closely only with a limited number of assistants who may have some handle on 'how he thought' about his parameters. What I do know now, is that what he did was not only unconventional then, but only now is being understood by modern or recent producers etc.. so, in basic terms, he both 'flattened the source' (compressions and stereo techniques) and 'filled space' theoretically very differently to many. The way his hardware pumped and squashed instruments made them not 'lesser' but more malleable and easy to pan - and his extreme 'echo' settings helped make those almost cartoonish sounds seem magically vivid, dancing in the spatial stage he placed them inside. It was both technically stunning, kind of simple, yet fiendishly genius - and it was his way which he learned as he used the tools in his own way. People trying to do similar things used very different techniques. I'm kind of surprised to find that his ways of working things was not really so well known - but it would make plenty of people blush, who would both applaud his album productions AND say "I am 100% about perfect recordings". Because it turned out he danced an incredible line between making the music seem perfectly recorded and artistically polished beyond realism. Well, it was well recorded no doubt - but it was mixed into a 'sweet spot' in a way, beyond reality.

That may be the crux of many people's problems with editing Pianoteq generally IMHO..  there are those seeking to make it sound like a very realistic piano in their space, often with suboptimal acoustics/speakers/audio/PC. For those, tweaking may be only of so much use, or importance. In a way, if the room is awful acoustically, or using tiny speakers or with a slow PC and/or poor quality sound card.. there's just the reality that no amount of tweaking may beat the defaults.. and all the tweaking done will be kind of made more difficult to work out, because something is wrong with the room/equipment. Many pianists can play fine on any given piano - and in a way, that's a fine goal to reach "be happy to play well on any Pianoteq default". Pianoteq is IMO the best software piano for sound and realism in feel too, so the perfect companion for that use case, out-of-the-box.

Then people who record and wish to make their best recordings possible, may invest more on dpiano or equipment and maybe some acoustic issues are also under control more than normal. For this group.. the sky is the limit and Pianoteq for sure is the perfect companion as it can be any piano for any track in any style, in one product. Insanely workable compared to other products (with no lack of love for other instrument makers - I appreciate all music software but Pianoteq is to me miles in front and exceeds my demands by far now).

For fussy editing for production purposes, it can be easy to believe that a guide can assist getting there.. but nothing will beat spending time at the wheel alone, steering too far and going off the road 1000 times

For an example, I may love a default piano sound but want different stereo-ized width (no so wide maybe).. so, it would be useless to look in any guide on "how to" do that because, there are indeed 100 ways to do it, at least.. none 'correct' per se. In fact, it may not be something in Pianoteq to be the perfect tool - like using a Mid/Side signal path (in some DAWs and in many audio plugin tools it is now more common). With that, I might lower the 'Sides' and/or raise the 'Mid' (just a mono 'center' signal, whilst 'sides' is what we hear as further left and right.. it's an old but good trick, which I LOVE for piano in recordings. There are new TM ways of also working similarly and I like some of those too.. but indeed.. it's something people probably only learn if they do a course, or cruise through plugin sites and self-teach all things audio for any time).

Similarly, within Pianoteq, it may seem logical that: IF control X is moved down 2, then Y might move up 1 to compensate.

Strange as fiction though, physics kind of throws a universal virtual spanner into the cogs here, because, every piano is different and no numbers will align. Each piano preset has its own underlying 'in-engine' settings which set it apart from other presets.. so, if on one preset you move a control left by 2, something not identical would occur moving left by 2 on another preset.

And, the contribution to the overall sound may be incredibly compounded in one piano compared to another. Like the way the Bluthner may have a different 'ring' to others - if you alter another piano the same way as you might alter that one, you may hear something much different and wayward from the goal.

I say all this, not to put anyone off - but instead.. to those learning, esp. those struggling, I do feel "the best way" (TM) is to let go of too much focus on exacting movements of certain controls, and how you may want to make reactionary edits to counter every other alteration here or there.

The thing I believe (more now than 8 or so years ago) is that, you have better up-ramping in the learning process by accepting that Modartt has done it extremely well (and there's little need for most to edit the defaults).. and that it will take time (even with much pre-existing knowledge) to make fortuitous use of all the controls in custom presets with many and various multiple edits.

I know for a long time, just moving the 'Condition' slider a little was a much quicker and better path to a more 'loose' kind of piano vibe.. for many that's going to be all that's needed (Pianoteq is 'well regulated' - and I love that and use it as-is yet when needed or wanted, a very slightly 'out of tune' swimming can make any piano more like one in our room generally, whereas defaults are mostly like pristine grands ready for the stage or studio, barring the defaults with some of that character already baked in).

Anyone who read all this, is probably the type of person who will persist in learning how to make use of the controls well - and I wish everyone the very best in that persuit - from my perspective, Pianoteq has been the most satisfying musical tool I've had the pleasure to experience.

Having forgot to put this up above - but above all, trust your ears as you go.. you fine they lie at times, so give yourself plenty of time between sessions of editing, and know for sure, many times you come back to some edited preset you thought sounded wonderful, only to discover you made it sound much much worse.. and also know, that never stops happening no matter how much time you put in.. it's part of the process of working with audio and the only workaround is adequate breaks, adequate time off, adequate safe volume levels, and adequate time and focus - but I believe everyone who understands some basics about audio can get to grips with Pianoteq's power-user controls if they apply some time and effort. Really hope this helps - my perspective is as someone with much experience with audio/music. I've been fascinated with Pianoteq for around 8 or 9 years now and probably more fascinated now, than on day one. Would always recommend it, and all the controls, to anyone interested - because, even when we might believe we understand exactly what does what, the same things do different things to different pianos, and hence 'trust your ears' is, to me, a more solid truth than a guide book. I do understand much of that may seem counter-intuitive but it's how I've come to view all audio and instruments.. we can read about 'em if we want - but we can only truly play them well IF we really spend the time to play

Wishing great enjoyment in your Pianoteq editing!

The "workshop" focused is itself focused! I love how it gives an overview to a complicated process with clear goals and steps to get there that can be used for other projects.

Perhaps in the Pianoteq Pro community there could be more verbal "how I decided" stuff, more "this excites me," more sharing of presets and music, grand plans and the like. I posted something here almost like a head-first tutorial for turning YC5 into player perspective YC7/CFX. It could have been more focused, and truthfully the fxp results are still works in progress. But because it's fun, I'm still at it, now also tweaking other instruments (yesterday NY Steinway D).

My takeaway: Pianoteq Pro (plus the user manual, plus high quality reference sounds/experiences) is a fun sort of education itself, since you can copy and paste between instruments, and A-B macro and micro changes, often very quickly; then you can document that "this or that change sounds like this or that"; make your own set of presets to refer back to reflect that change; check against the reference; repeat with variation.